JV Freelance

Stem cell concern: Public patience amid all the hype

When I listen to some politicians that support stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research, I understand why stem cell research pioneers like Dr. James Thomson try to be realistic when talking about its potential benefits, and the timetable on which these benefits will reach us.

It is the political season, and in the coming weeks we’ll hear a lot about the potential cures and treatments that stem cell research could produce. Be prepared, however, for snake oil salesmen (and women) that trot out families whose members suffer from conditions like juvenile diabetes and make it sound as though stem cell research will produce cures that are just around the corner.

It’s the latest version of “vote for me, and I’ll set you free.” They may be able to hoodwink some members of the public into believing this, but in the long run their baloney may be doing this promising research a great disservice in terms of public expectations and possible disillusionment.

I thought about this recently during the World Stem Cell Summit in Madison, where Thomson once again acknowledged how much work there still is to do, and following a recent chat with Alta Charo, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of law and bioethics. As people who are fully immersed in advancing stem cell research, they understand that the science is unpredictable and could benefit people in ways we don’t expect.

They also understand that the most immediate applications will not be cures for the most debilitating human diseases or regenerative applications like transplants, but in gradual improvements in the fundamental areas of public health.

Stem cell apps

“The most likely applications are not the kind people have in mind, not transplanting a pancreas in a diabetic, or the spinal cord of a paralyzed veteran,” Charo said. “Some of the applications will be things like creating test tube models of diseases so we can screen possible new drugs more quickly, more cheaply, and more safely than we currently do.”

Another important application, Charo said, is going to be the development of a safe human blood supply. At the moment, we rely on donations from individuals, but in the future we might be able to grow real human blood from embryonic stem cells or other kinds of cell lines, she noted. This could produce a blood supply that is manageable, abundant, and free of contaminants or viruses.

Another important application will be the in the study of genetic disease. Someday, we could be able to take cells from people who have genetic disorders and generate stem cell lines, whether through cloning or induced pluripotent stem cell work, and then grow those cell lines in laboratories so that researchers can see how a genetic mutation affects the normal growth of tissue. In this way, stem cells could help researchers understand how genetic mutations cause illness.

“That may give us some insights into new ways that we can try and ameliorate or even cure these diseases,” Charo said.

"A lot of those research applications don't have the wow factor that a human transplant does, but the public needs to appreciate that the most important developments may take place in less obviously dramatic areas of research, which are nonetheless hugely important in improving public health.”

Regarding human transplant work, Charo said the public soon might hear more about experiments in human stem cell lines that have been placed into animals. This will be done in order to test whether those stem cell lines can reliably be directed “to make the kind of tissue you want it to make, and make sure that that tissue then integrates itself into the body where you want it to integrate, and begin to function as that tissue needs to function,” she explained.

The idea of putting human tissue into an animal can be very alarming, Charo cautioned. “It's even generated some Congressional interest, and it is something that can sound science fiction-like,” she said. “It can sound dangerous. It can sound creepy even, but in fact it's a perfectly normal part of research.”

The harm of hype

These applications provide more than enough justification to support human embryonic stem cell research and ramp up federal funding beyond existing lines. (I’ve predicted that rescinding the Bush restrictions might be Barack Obama’s first official act as president, but I’m getting ahead of myself). Investing in stem cell research is both a short and long-term commitment, but it’s an investment that should be tempered with some truth about expectations.

During the World Stem Cell Summit, I engaged in some small talk with a couple of attendees about the cautious tone of Thomson, who serves as the director of regenerative biology at the Morgridge Institute for Research. One man seated in front of me, somewhat annoyed by Thomson’s attempts to fight the hype, actually questioned his commitment to regenerative medicine.

Imagine that. The man who first isolated and cultured embryonic stem cells, and who was instrumental in developing induced pluripotent stem cells, was having his commitment questioned.

Perhaps the hype already has gone too far.

What Obama should say about Iraq and the surge

Upon his return from a triumphant foreign trip, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama found himself in a rhetorical box over the improving situation in Iraq, which only a delusional person would not attribute to the troop surge launched in 2007.

For a variety of reasons, many having to do with unmet needs here at home, I agree with Obama that we should gradually reduce our troop footprint in Iraq early in the next presidential term. Ironically, it's the stunning success of the surge, and the growing effectiveness of the Iraqi military, that suddenly makes this a more likely scenario.

Yet Obama can't bring himself to admit the obvious: that the surge has exceeded everyone's expectations in reducing violence, which in turn has given the Iraqi government the space it needs to make progress on various benchmarks. I realize that Obama said the surge wouldn't work, but he should be thankful it did. Why? Because now we can implement his phased withdrawal without Iraq plunging into chaos, something no prospective President should wish upon himself.

Obama will have to eat his words, but he can also remind voters of President Bush's words. While running for re-election four years ago, the President summed up his policy succinctly: "When the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down."

Well, in becoming more effective in handling their own security needs, the Iraqis are standing up. They have become so confident in their ability to stand up that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has more or less endorsed Obama's timetable for withdrawal.

Four years ago, there was nothing in President Bush's rhetoric about permanent bases or a 100-year troop commitment (John McCain's words). Simply put, when the Iraqis were ready, we could leave and/or redeploy. The way things are going, Afghanistan looks like the most likely place.

Obama also can point out that if Bush had launched such a troop surge after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, we probably would have withdrawn by now. In fact, he can remind people that if Bush had been more patient with the United Nations weapons inspection program, we would have found out before the invasion that Iraq had stopped producing weapons of mass destruction - the Administration's primary justification for the war.

By refusing to admit the obvious about the troop surge, Obama has missed an opportunity to explain why his policy is not reckless, as McCain alleges. The Iraqis had to take the hand-off at some point in time, and thanks to the troop surge that time is fast approaching. Suck it up and say so.

The research rise of Wisconsin's "other" campuses

In a few short years, technology transfer won't be the sole province of the University of Wisconsin-Madison or UW-Milwaukee.

In fact, it's already spreading to Wisconsin's smaller universities, if the early-stage success of UW-Platteville spin-off Graphene Solutions is any indication. Last month, the nanotechnology business won the 2008 Governor's Business Plan Contest, and several research programs that could someday lead to similar tech transfer were on display last week at the Wisconsin Science and Technology Symposium at UW-Stout.

The symposium was revealing and encouraging, especially for those who believe the state's so-called "comprehensive campuses" can contribute to the strategy of building an economy around biotechnology and clean energy. One of those believers is Gov. Jim Doyle, who addressed the symposium on July 17.

Doyle noted the contributions of the WiSys Technology Foundation, which is trying to accommodate technology transfer from the comprehensive campuses in much the same way its parent organization, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, does at UW-Madison. Doyle called WiSys' efforts to apply WARF's tech transfer methods around the state as "incredibly important" to unlocking research and commercial development from that research.

Tech triumvirate

Another interested observer was Tom Wyrobek, president of Hysitron, a maker of nano-mechanical test instruments based in Eden Prairie, Minn. In the past, Hysitron has collaborated with the likes of the University of Minnesota, the University of California Berkeley, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but now it is looking for collaborations with smaller, sometimes hungrier institutions.

Thanks to research that is growing in sophistication, some smaller schools have become the darlings of federal funding agencies. "When they get a pot of money, something will happen, as opposed to larger schools where you don't know," Wyrobek said.

The WARF tech transfer model isn't the only one in play. Lance Kuhn, customer service manager for Hysitron, said the company has been using a model that involves what he called the new technology triumvirate: smaller tech companies that develop cutting-edge products, academic institutions that validate the technology's efficacy (with faculty and student involvement), and industry that puts it to good use.

"They [industry] are the ones that have the real need and are the ultimate benefactors," Kuhn noted.

At UW-Madison, tech transfer has been part of the "Wisconsin Idea" for decades, but now smaller universities are lining up for a piece of the $150 billion federal R&D pot. About $1.5 billion of that is for nanotech initiatives, and that's where several of Wisconsin's comprehensive campuses come in.

The UW-Stouts and UW-Eau Claires of the world, not to mention tech colleges like Chippewa Valley Technical College, not only complement research being done at UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee, they can complement and collaborate with one another. In fact, that's just what they are doing with the NanoRite Center for Innovation, a nanotech research center on the campus of CVTC. Together, they may do even more to fill the high-tech space between the Twin Cities and Eau Claire.

Charles Sorensen, chancellor at UW-Stout, expects the partnership to have a profound impact on economic development in northwestern Wisconsin and on the region's ability to attract segments of the creative class. "We are planning out a very careful way to be a major player in applied research for the UW comprehensives and in this I-94 corridor from Minneapolis to Eau Claire, which is a growth corridor," Sorensen said.

He's not alone in that view. Virtually every UW campus is trying to leverage faculty-student research. On display at the  Science and Technology Symposium were programs in genomics (UW-Stout), tissue engineering and high-oil corn (UW-River Falls), solid-state lighting (UW-Oshkosh), and nanoscale electronics (UW-Stevens Point).

Capitalizing on research

While the short-term, problem-solving benefits of the research has industry taking a close look, venture capitalists are taking the long view. Charlie Goff, general partner of the Appleton-based New Capital Fund, agreed that ramped-up research is a legitimate thrust for the likes of UW-Stout, but the ability to transfer research from the lab to the marketplace ultimately will determine whether these technologies attract risk capital.

"You have to find something that is close enough to prime time so that risk capital isn't going to get tired," Goff said. "I'm not sure there is more than a handful, but we have to be aware of these things as they occur."

Paul Ryan: My kind of Congressman

When it comes to politics, I’ve evolved into a hybrid. I give my loyalty to no party or movement; instead, I look for people in both parties who stand out for their seriousness and their willingness to craft real solutions.

By that standard, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan stands out like a cool breeze in a sauna bath. In an era where nothing important gets done because few people have either the profile or the courage to fight the good fight, Ryan packs a wallop.

You may not agree with all of his prescriptions, but at least the five-term Republican has put some thought leadership into the nation’s most pressing issues: Medicare and Social Security reform, health insurance cost and quality, and tax simplification, to name a few.

I normally don’t hop on many bandwagons, but “Ryan the Rarity” deserves some special attention. So to get the full scope of his proposals, and get a genuine public policy tutorial, I invite you to visit http://www.americanroadmap.org.

The conventional wisdom is to forget such bold and comprehensive attempts at government scholarship for fear that it could be used against you in a political campaign. But as Ryan indicated to the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Kevin Ferris, today’s campaigns are virtually perpetual, so nothing ever gets done.

For those of us who expect public servants to be proactive in solving problems, nothing is more frustrating than this political equivalent of walking on eggshells. 

Take healthcare. For years, ideas like the creation of insurance pools to help small businesses deal with rising health insurance costs have been stymied by partisan gridlock. Now that employee healthcare costs once again appear to be rising too fast for comfort, 2008 would be the perfect time to establish insurance pools for the very businesses that create most new jobs. Just in case our Congressional profiles in courage haven’t noticed, the economy has lost jobs for several consecutive months as the nation teeters on the brink of a contraction.

Ryan, who reportedly is on John McCain’s long list for the Republican vice presidential slot, understands this, and I suspect others do, too. The problem is that many politicians, especially Republicans, have become paralyzed – inexplicably in my view - at a time when the public craves real leadership.

Much to Ryan’s chagrin, the party of alleged fiscal discipline can’t even get its act together to stop earmarks (aka, the pork barrel spending that angers so many voters). No wonder the GOP is considered DOA come November.

My advice to the timid in both parties is simple: embrace well-crafted solutions of your own, and when your opponent tries to pick them apart, be ready to defend them and turn the tables with a simple question and a statement.

The question is: what’s your solution?

Assuming no solution is offered, the statement is: a person that is prepared to lead would have one.